Difference between revisions of "Talk:Comparative study of field of view algorithms for 2D grid based worlds"

From RogueBasin
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Rassin' frassin' indents and spacing - take 2)
m
Line 7: Line 7:


:I stand by my verification. [[User:Scautura|Scautura]] 19:09, 24 February 2009 (CET)
:I stand by my verification. [[User:Scautura|Scautura]] 19:09, 24 February 2009 (CET)
::Why, of course I am paranoid, and yes. this was a too quick action made by me, and yes, I did not check my facts about the author nor the image issue before writing and for that ''I humbly apoligize''. But I still see it as an "offensive action" (well, something along that road) by putting up an offsite link along with a images-not-working-click-here-note (notice the resemblance with spam mails? Creepy, I say). Also, in defense of my quick acting, I was having [[Digital field of view implementation]] and it's noticable use of images, in mind and couldn't understand why on earth jice was having trouble, wikifying the article. That, and the fact I first didn't recognize jice (even though I've been visiting his site and gasping at his awsomenessy images and code library, shame on me!).
::You have some very good points there, he could've been malicious a long time ago and I was overreacting, which I truly apoligize for. But I still consider security as an overlooked, yet terribly important aspect of everyday use of the wild web and therefor will stand for my hasty notice. Also, that's a nice score: first time i've been called a rampant. [[User:Solarnus|Solarnus]] 20:31, 24 February 2009 (CET)

Revision as of 19:31, 24 February 2009

There's a new exploit flowing through the net, allowing an attacker to hijack one's computer with the use of PDF files opened in Acrobat Reader 9 and earlier. All one have to do is open the infected PDF and the exploit code will be run. All platforms running Adobe's Acrobat Reader are vulnerable! References: Article on Adobe and Another article on shadowserver.com explaining how to prevent this kind of exploit.

I strongly suggest thinking twice and be verry carefully with the PDF file provided in this article, until someone experienced has verified that this file indeed are safe to open! Solarnus 11:52, 23 February 2009 (CET)

I can verify that the file is fine, with no issues whatsoever (although I'm not sure how strong my word is over here. I'm sure that if jice meant any malice, he would surely have been malicious a long time ago, or with his roguelikes. For that matter, downloading and compiling any "unknown" code (e.g. Angband source) or unsigned .exe (for Win) that is posted would be just as bad, if not worse. Given that nobody truly knows anybody in the world of the internet (meets excluded for the sake of a "point"), this could be seen as rampant paranoia.
I stand by my verification. Scautura 19:09, 24 February 2009 (CET)
Why, of course I am paranoid, and yes. this was a too quick action made by me, and yes, I did not check my facts about the author nor the image issue before writing and for that I humbly apoligize. But I still see it as an "offensive action" (well, something along that road) by putting up an offsite link along with a images-not-working-click-here-note (notice the resemblance with spam mails? Creepy, I say). Also, in defense of my quick acting, I was having Digital field of view implementation and it's noticable use of images, in mind and couldn't understand why on earth jice was having trouble, wikifying the article. That, and the fact I first didn't recognize jice (even though I've been visiting his site and gasping at his awsomenessy images and code library, shame on me!).
You have some very good points there, he could've been malicious a long time ago and I was overreacting, which I truly apoligize for. But I still consider security as an overlooked, yet terribly important aspect of everyday use of the wild web and therefor will stand for my hasty notice. Also, that's a nice score: first time i've been called a rampant. Solarnus 20:31, 24 February 2009 (CET)